toggle_repeat

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return value (new repeat state), which matters since no output schema exists, but it does not cover permissions, scope (global vs project), or reversibility beyond the inherent nature of a toggle.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short lines with the action front-loaded and the return value noted. Nothing is padded or redundant for such a simple operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description supplies both the action and the return shape, which is the essential information needed to invoke and interpret it. The sibling getter covers the read counterpart.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies when there are no parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (toggle) and resource (repeat/loop mode), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling get_repeat_state, which handles the read side of the same state, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the 'toggle' verb — an agent can infer this flips the state rather than setting an explicit value. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_repeat_state for reading, nor any prerequisites or conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.